Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:04:00 -
[61] - Quote
So far its good, I had some worries that the new build times would crush the eve market but this is not the case at the moment.Lots of items manage to tank the fast production speed well enough not to fall to dramatic levels.
I've noticed only few however that are selling below build t2 invention build cost and I guess they will become the "new mining crystals t2 bpo zone only".
Which is kinda sad as this should be game for all us not just the t2 bpo owners.
I hope that with the upcoming invention changes you will think about tweaking the invention times at the least because that would help a lot. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2560
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:02:00 -
[62] - Quote
OK, thread read up to this point, I've got 24 bullet points in my to-look-at list. Some specific questions I have:
Fonac wrote:2. Depending on how you click on a blueprint to "view in industry" you get different results. Some without research taken itn account, and some with.
Can you give examples of this, so we can be sure we're looking at the right problem?
Retar Aveymone wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: I've seen reports of outposts not giving the correct cost reductions but it *seems* to be working on my test server; it's possible I've misunderstood the reports though? More info here would be good!
-Greyscale
We are not receiving the cost reduction to install fees in amarr outposts (ME bonuses seem to be working). When this was reported, we were told that feature was axed. When it was pointed out that it was explicitly included in the final dev blog, there was some hemming and hawing and then "we'll work on it". So is this actually going to be implemented? Also, we badly need a better breakdown in-game of what's contributing to install costs.
Can someone show their working on this (ie the calculations you're doing that lead you to conclude that the numbers are wrong) so (again) we can be sure we're looking at the right problem :)
Thomas Hurt wrote:Good patch, my only complaint is that it failed to add in a race of Cat-People with customizeable ears/tails/fur patterns/etc.
Yes.
Ari Ashimon wrote:From what I can tell, Minmatar outpost factory upgrades that previously gave slot upgrades are still not giving ME reductions as per the original design.
Let me double-check this.
Gilbaron wrote:do you remember when you wanted to discuss increasing the production time for fighters, fighter bombers and capital modules ?
you said you would talk about it with some people, but there has been silence since then :(
...actually yeah, I do. I'll put that on the list.
Kenneth Feld wrote:CCP Greyscale -
I chatted with you about this prior to your vacation- which I hope you enjoyed
Minnie outpost lab upgrade not providing invention
EBR-224582014/08/21Science - Minmatar outpost upgradeAttachedEdit | View Comments
That is the Bugreport
Just wondering what is happening and what kind of time frame are we dealing with?
Vacation was lovely, thank you.
I looked at this last week, the upshot from our end is that the text was unnecessarily broad and misleading - it does "technically" give an invention time reduction, but it doesn't actually let you do invention so you can never use that bit of the bonus. This is obviously silly. Text is now fixed; if you're stuck with an unwanted upgrade, I'd suggest talking to CS and asking what their policy is on that as I really don't know, sorry!
Querns wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
I'm going to read this properly tomorrow, but in the meantime I'm just dropping in to suggest that if you want to have a longer discussion about particular things, it'd be super helpful if you created a spin-off thread and link it from here, mainly because it makes it much easier for me to follow separate conversations when they're not interleaved :) What's all here is great, I'm just wary of coming back in the morning and finding ten pages about compression ;)
Thanks! -Greyscale Ah, sorry about that. I've taken the liberty of making the adjunct thread you requested.
Thanks :)
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2560
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:10:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ari Ashimon wrote:From what I can tell, Minmatar outpost factory upgrades that previously gave slot upgrades are still not giving ME reductions as per the original design. Let me double-check this.
It looks from a quick check like this was implemented... can you show your working? |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:20:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Can someone show their working on this (ie the calculations you're doing that lead you to conclude that the numbers are wrong) so (again) we can be sure we're looking at the right problem :)
I can't, really, because we don't have the information we need. We only have that the tooltip shows no reduction, we have the previous posts agreeing it's not working, and then we have our internal estimates not lining up with where 2R- is. But we never have the raw job data to run through the formula and tell us if it's giving us 2x the value it should.
If it is working correctly, I think you need to edit the tooltip to expose the underlying value, then the reduction: if we can't even figure out if this is implemented despite caring a great deal then the game's not exposing the data it should. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
442
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:32:00 -
[65] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:- T3's Hulls still require pre-crius number of RAM's even though stacks have been updated in our hangars/market orders/etc.. - T3 reverse enginering success rate is wrong OR the formula that's been available to public for ages is not acurate (i'l update the
EDIT: update with example: Intact Hull Section Base Probability (minus) -60% Skills 105% Total 82% This is from client. With all relevant skills at lvl 5.
Now lets look at formula as available in most online guides: Base 40% (interpretting -60% as 100%-60%=40% so this one is correct) 40% * (1+(0.01 * Reverse_Enginering))*(1+(0.1*(Plasma_Physics + Mech_Enginering))) 40% * 2.1 84% - so skill bonus is 110% not 105% (2.1-1)
So either that formula is wrong OR the ingame display is wrong
- when using "view in idnustry" on blueprint and checking how it would work in given station/pos i have access too i cant select corect tabs for corp hangars to check if i have right materials - when searching for teams i cant select what kind of bonus i'm looking for (for example try searching for material bonus to lets say hybrid components - you will get tones of material bonuses mixed with time bonuses teams. also cant sort by bonus level (best teams first for example) - its very unclear what is the cost level of system - the curent indicator with bars is very uninformative. Also a system with 5 and system with 15% is showing full bar which is very missleading when comparing systems. - for reverse enginering there is no info how many racial decryptors I have. when i select for example Gallente racial decryptor to make proteus hull i cant tell how many i have in that location and how many are needed. - not all systems are shown in FACILITIES tab. when I want to check how much it costs to run a job in a system where i know there is facility for it not all systems are available. Is there a limit on systems presented in that list? Regional? range? other?
Other than that its great. I love the new streamlined interface. Although for serious manufacturing the spreadsheets got more complicated :D
Waiting what You have in Your sleeve for new skills for industry.
For invention and reverse enginering I would love to have better breakdown screen of succeses and failures (when runing 11 identic jobs its easy to say what was success and what not, when running say 3/3/3/2 reverse of each race t3's and just seeing list of success/failure without info what is what is not good feedback for player. Havent tried the subsystems yet and i imagine having no info what was the random subsystem result is even worse)
For reverse enginering I would love to see REMOVAL of random subsystem result. Its annoying mechanic. Just increase reverse time / material needs / whatever but let us produce what we want to produce. I'm sure that my blueprints copies for uneeded subsystems (the ones that i dont bother to produce) takes a looooot of DB space in my hangar and server time when i accidentally click the container leaf on inventory screen to load them :D (and it kiils my PC too)
For manufacturing/science in general I would love to see the cost of running a job in a system without station service for it - just to see the cost index to check if i want to place a pos there without using API for that ( i know its on map, but come-on)
quoting for visibility Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Longinius Spear
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
285
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:50:00 -
[66] - Quote
I love the UI enhancements. I think the team bonuss vs T3 manufacturing could be better. I bought a team for my wormhole that had a 1.5 ME bonus for 2 million ISK. Upon application of that team on construction mats the items reduced are always the lowest cost items.
This doesnGÇÖt benefit me at all because it not only raises the build cost beyond the materials it saves AND I may never get back my 2 million isk investment. I know this is small potatoes, but this was a test and the test says, donGÇÖt do it.
Thats my feedback .
Read more of my ramblings on my blog www.invadingyourhole.blogspot.com |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:59:00 -
[67] - Quote
Attached is a screenshot showing YA0 not getting the ME bonus. It should be getting 1% off (our stations with 2% off are also not working): http://i.imgur.com/ccRRuiQ.jpg
Also, without the team just for good measure: http://i.imgur.com/w8rETlK.jpg |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3690
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:12:00 -
[68] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:- T3's Hulls still require pre-crius number of RAM's even though stacks have been updated in our hangars/market orders/etc..
Hrrm interesting, we'll investigate.
Max Kolonko wrote:- T3 reverse enginering success rate is wrong OR the formula that's been available to public for ages is not acurate (i'l update the
EDIT: update with example: Intact Hull Section Base Probability (minus) -60% Skills 105% Total 82% This is from client. With all relevant skills at lvl 5.
Now lets look at formula as available in most online guides: Base 40% (interpretting -60% as 100%-60%=40% so this one is correct) 40% * (1+(0.01 * Reverse_Enginering))*(1+(0.1*(Plasma_Physics + Mech_Enginering))) 40% * 2.1 84% - so skill bonus is 110% not 105% (2.1-1)
So either that formula is wrong OR the ingame display is wrong
We slightly changed the Invention / Reverse Engineering formulas in Crius, not by a whole bunch but that accounts for the 2% difference you're facing.
Regarding your other comments, you'll be happy to know that we are working on Invention / Reverse Engineering next - we have a dev blog covering the changes in the pipelines in that regard (and it'll show the new Invention / Reverse Engineering formula as well). |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1506
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:12:00 -
[69] - Quote
Oh, and something else:
I don't really understand why the various me/te Boni multiply and not simply add up. Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
Hezekiah Winter
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:13:00 -
[70] - Quote
On the industry topic.
Is it possible to increase the max contact time.
When putting up bulk item exchange contracts for Corp reshipping it is really annoying having to renew them every two weeks if they dont sell.
Market order can be up for 3 months, why not do the same for Contracts.
|
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1506
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:22:00 -
[71] - Quote
The Ui is still annoying on wide-screen laptop displays. Something something less visual fluff Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
56
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:22:00 -
[72] - Quote
The single greatest complaint I have is that the UI is not resizeable, so if I dare to play on a laptop instead of my desktop, the amount of space you have to work with your BP's is painfully small (and the scroll bar is a bugger). |
Tramun Clogg
The Majestic Duck
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:31:00 -
[73] - Quote
The UI seems really sluggish. I just want to click, start-job, click, start-job, click, start-job... Instead I need to wait about 5 seconds in between each click.
When I'm switching the input and output locations for my jobs, I keep accidentally clicking above or below the dropdown and the inventory window opens to that location instead of opening up the dropdown.
For invention, the "estimated costs" pop-up on hover over includes the cost of the data interface. The data interface isn't consumed so I don't think it should be included. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
727
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:34:00 -
[74] - Quote
This is not strictly related to crius, but zyd is currently 400, while nocx is close to 700. This needs to get implemented: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=370404&find=unread
Ore anomolies in nullsec are breaking the ability of market forces to adjust mineral production and highend death is the end result. |
Looping Loui
Allegiant Enterprises
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:55:00 -
[75] - Quote
The compression of minerals is way to complicated now. In theory it should work very well, but when you look at the ore compression market its dead. You can barely build 1 super with the entire jita stock. |
Veinnail
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
102
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:03:00 -
[76] - Quote
the uniformity of the t2 ship material requirements is betrayed by the gallente battlecruisers.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365451 |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
725
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:26:00 -
[77] - Quote
Industry GUI is too damn big If taxing rate changes while GUI is open the GUI will not accept another BP until it has been closed and reopened. Re-"using" BP will not override. Found BPO's that did not properly display impacts of skills on invention (looks like oversight in migration) After one of the recent post- release patches, started seeing miniature icon array of input hanger contents flashing in upper left of GUI after a "Use Blueprint". Doesn't break interface, but it sure looks Micky Mouse. GUI often lags significantly - almost to the point of breaking usability. Teams mechanics are ****. Lack of bidding record is just a start. GUI gets confused about state for a BP, have to close GUI, use a different BP before going back to trying to use original BP.
Made the game harder for new players in all ways.
Refine rates for minerals and modules are bullshit.'
Still have a totally unusable skill orphaned.
This is just right off the top. Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with the rest of the current list of problems and failures.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Kithran
112
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:28:00 -
[78] - Quote
One minor thing with the changes to reprocessing.
Metal Scraps (and Reinforced Metal Scraps) can only be reprocessed - they have no other use.
Prior to the change you could get 500 (or 2500) trit per one reprocessed but now you get a lot less.
The same change that was applied to alchemy (namely adjustment so amounts obtained post crius match those obtained before) as these explicity exist to be reprocessed. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
725
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:36:00 -
[79] - Quote
Did you go back and read all the way through the official Crius feedback threads? The lack of Dev feedback always leads us to believe Dev's stop caring after about 10 pages of any release. Which of course makes us customers really want to help you out with even more threads like this. CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
GoffyDude Davaham
Bareback Withdrawal and Deposit Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:42:00 -
[80] - Quote
The new taxes on all slots (manufacturing, research) are way more expensive now, even in an otherwise empty wormhole. It's a bit ridiculous. Also, how about showing the refining output of an intensive refining array like in station? Currently, all that happens is that the ore is straight refined without telling you what you're going to get first. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
777
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:46:00 -
[81] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote: Still have a totally unusable skill orphaned.
What skill are you talking about, Advanced Industry (nee Material Efficiency?)
Advanced Industry is an awesome skill. I have a new industry character training it to 5 now. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
725
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:54:00 -
[82] - Quote
The more likely use of a BPC is for invention, not production. Since BPC's are not carrying last state of use (like the BPO's do) changing UI initial guess of BPC use to invention would be less clicky. CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Imodesky Kafelnikov
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:57:00 -
[83] - Quote
Worst patch in 10/11 wtvr years.
o7
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
257
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:59:00 -
[84] - Quote
I like the expansion, but being able to resize the industrial UI would be a nice 'feature'. Baddest poster ever |
General Nusense
Not Posting With My Main
253
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:17:00 -
[85] - Quote
If you are trying to get compressed ore to nullsec, I laugh at your inability to get it. you have enough space and enough people. instead of trying to get CCP to change something, get your 11k alliance mates to mine or buy ore from one of your many renters.
Made a signature so I am taken seriously on the forums, since thats the only thing they are good for. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
111
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:24:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, thread read up to this point, I've got 24 bullet points in my to-look-at list. Some specific questions I have: Fonac wrote:2. Depending on how you click on a blueprint to "view in industry" you get different results. Some without research taken itn account, and some with.
Can you give examples of this, so we can be sure we're looking at the right problem? Retar Aveymone wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: I've seen reports of outposts not giving the correct cost reductions but it *seems* to be working on my test server; it's possible I've misunderstood the reports though? More info here would be good!
-Greyscale
We are not receiving the cost reduction to install fees in amarr outposts (ME bonuses seem to be working). When this was reported, we were told that feature was axed. When it was pointed out that it was explicitly included in the final dev blog, there was some hemming and hawing and then "we'll work on it". So is this actually going to be implemented? Also, we badly need a better breakdown in-game of what's contributing to install costs. Can someone show their working on this (ie the calculations you're doing that lead you to conclude that the numbers are wrong) so (again) we can be sure we're looking at the right problem :) Kenneth Feld wrote:CCP Greyscale -
I chatted with you about this prior to your vacation- which I hope you enjoyed
Minnie outpost lab upgrade not providing invention
EBR-224582014/08/21Science - Minmatar outpost upgradeAttachedEdit | View Comments
That is the Bugreport
Just wondering what is happening and what kind of time frame are we dealing with? Vacation was lovely, thank you. I looked at this last week, the upshot from our end is that the text was unnecessarily broad and misleading - it does "technically" give an invention time reduction, but it doesn't actually let you do invention so you can never use that bit of the bonus. This is obviously silly. Text is now fixed; if you're stuck with an unwanted upgrade, I'd suggest talking to CS and asking what their policy is on that as I really don't know, sorry!
First one, it is weird, I can prolly prove it, but can't put a finger on it
Second point - See alternate thread i made, complete with screenshots - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4978539#post4978539
Third - Uggh, maybe instead of fixing text there should be something added like an attributes tab or something to explain what these things do, right now it is a black science with typo's
Kenneth |
Rumtin
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
93
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:06:00 -
[87] - Quote
Bare with me for a second as I get this off my chest.
I can't stand the course if action taken towards Blueprints, in particular the T2 BPO's. I completely understand and agree that the way the T2 BPO's were handled before was the wrong way to go about it, but its not the players who owned the T2 BPO's fault that they played the game at an earlier time than all the rest and were able to take advantage of being able to acquire them. However, the fix CCP decided to take, in my honest opinion, was the wrong fix that was needed to balance them out.
Rather than scrapping/repurposing the entire purpose of the Material Efficiency skill to negate and further dumb-down the industry skill tree, I would have rather seen CCP fix the issue concerning the T2 BPO's by making a slight modification to the invention jobs that would have enabled a player (provided they met the proper criteria) to acquire a T2 BPO themselves from the T1 BPC they were inventing from provided there was a T2 variant available in game. Depending on the Indusrty related skills the player has, and how well researched the T1 BPC is, there would be a % chance the invention job would return a T2 original, and not a copy, ofcourse the BPC would still be consumed despite which was rewarded.
Had the change been done this way instead, the older player base wouldn't have felt like they were getting screwed to the degree they currently do now, and the newer players would still have the ability to level the playing field. It would also ensure that Industry was still something that was challenging and rewarding for those who invested the time, isk and other resources in to reap the maximum rewards, it would have been a win win for everyone, old and new.
However, that's not the change that occured unfortunately, and now here we are, stuck with a new industry that is less challenging with the older player base who feel like they were robbed out of yet another in game item that was rare.
I don't want to end this solely on a negative note, so i'll include some changes that I rather like. The new UI is very pretty and simple to use, and the tool tips (although I generally dispise tool tips) are pretty helpful at sharing useful info. Having no limits on station slots available for the various jobs is also a pretty well recieved change. Station slots were always a big issue with the more busier systems, but that is no longer the case. I haven't really dabbled with much else, so ill end this post here.
That's all I've got so far.
~Rumtin |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
67
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:38:00 -
[88] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:SJ Astralana wrote:On the topic of sniping, I'd like to see the bid changed to maximum bid, similar to ebay. In the UI, you would see the current winning bid, but you wouldn't see the winning bid's maximum bid. That way, a bidder can do a valuation, set the maximum, and have incremental bids dropped in until a winner is determined. This would be fantastic. How would you handle multiple bids? The way the system works now is: multiple people can all put bids in, which count to the system level bid. X puts 3 Y puts 7 Z puts 15 which leads to a total bid of 25 for the system. If the next highest bid for a system is 20, what you're suggesting would go up to 21. But how does that break down into X Y and Z's bids, for ISK returned? (not saying it's a bad idea. Just wondering how you'd suggest implementing it)
I'm not the OP, but I think the most equitable way of handling it would be to return an equal percentage of each bidder's bid based on how much of the total bid was used. In your example, (25-21)/25 = 4/25 = 0.16, so each bidder would get 16% of their bid back. X would get 0.48, Y would get 1.12, and Z would get 2.4.
At least, that's the best thing I've come up with off the top of my head. This probably also deserves its own thread, come to think of it, because bid sniping is why I basically don't bother with teams anymore despite really wanting one in my backwater nullsec system where I manufacture stuff for the local market. |
Crazy HybridChick
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:47:00 -
[89] - Quote
I just ran into an issue the other day with copying capital drone bay blueprints in a Caldari outpost. The outpost 30% time reduction was not applied. I'm not sure if it was a one off bug and I will test as soon as I bring over more BPOs. I did test with a cheap t1 drone BPO I didn't mind shuttling over which did list the outpost bonus.
Other than that bug I've been rather happy with the update. I just wish there was more ore volume moving through Jita. I have trouble purchasing enough be they compressed or not. There's plenty of minerals though; wish I could still compress them without doubling my costs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3587340&#post3587340 |
Saulvin
Merkabah Industries Invisible Exchequer
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:30:00 -
[90] - Quote
Hi,
1) please bring back alphabetical sort order of material requirements in blueprint info
2) Industry Interface - implement a table view of material requirements or provide exact numbers without the need to rely on a tool tip. By the time mouse is moved away from 23,953,234 tritanium in order to load them to the freighter tool tip is gone and the value eventually forgotten if not written down or typed in somewhere else.
- speed of switching between blueprints in the industry interface still has room for improvements.
- Blueprints tab "Inventory Location". hangars with their cans displayed as a hierarchy with cans in the respective hangars sorted underneath instead of mixing them into the can sort order. within hangars they should remain sorted in alphabetical order.
- being able to drag blueprints out of the blueprint tab into cans, cargo hold, hangars is an awesome side effect for those that prepare copy packs. the time it takes the UI to refresh after copies have been moved to another location from there could be a lot shorter. alternatively an additional tab just for the hangar division when in corp mode.
- make the top area of the industry interface with material details collapsable too, like the blueprint/facility/job/team section already is. since blueprints remember their run count, all I want from a bulk builders perspective is select next blueprint and and hit the blue or yellow button to start the job. only if its red one might be interested in details on whats going wrong.
- blueprint section it would be nice to be able to hide those blueprints that are currently
- reduce the minimum possible dialog size to fit the minimum possible client window size (1024x768). currently minimize and close button are not reachable unless one moves the window around to the left offscreen a bit. i think this has been mentioned before.
3) Refine Interface - its sometimes tricky to keep the yield tool tip alive.
regards
Saulvin |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |